Loading...
2011 04-21E IDIAN~--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING IDAHO COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Roll-call Attendance Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. 1. O Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X 2. 3. 4. City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho _X_ Steven Yearsley _X Joe Marshall Scott Freeman -Chairman Adoption of the Agenda Approved Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of March 3, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Approved Action Items A. Public Hearing: CPAM 10-002 McNelis Subdivision by Ten Mile Center, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Ustick Road Request: An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 13.85 Acres of Land from Mixed Use - Community (MU-C) and 20.04 Acres of Land from Office to Mixed Use -Non Residential (MU-NR) Recommend Approval to City Council B. Public Hearing: RZ 11-001 McNelis Subdivision by Ten Mile Center, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Ustick Road Request: Rezone of 18,522 +/- Square Feet from L-O (Limited Office) to I-L (Light Industrial) and 16.24 +/- Acres from L-O to C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) Recommend Approval to City Council Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -Thursday, April 21, 2011 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 21, 2011 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 21, 2011, was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Scott Freeman. Members Present: Chairman Scott Freeman, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Steven Yearsley Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X Scott Freeman -Chairman Freeman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I want to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning Zoning Commission for April 21st, 2011. If we could begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Freeman: Okay. There are no changes to the agenda today, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Yearsley: So moved. Rohm: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of March 3, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Freeman: Okay. First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and the only item on there is the approval of the minutes for March 3rd, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Could I get a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 2 of 16 Yearsley: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. Moving right along. Before I open the public hearing for our single item -- we don't have too many people in the audience, but I will briefly summarize how this process works. We will open the item and, then, the first thing we are going to do is hear staffs report. They will go through all of the issues concerning code and -- the development code. And, then, they will make a recommendation to us and, then, the applicant will have three minutes -- actually more than that -- they get ten minutes, do they not? Fifteen minutes to present your application, after which time we will take public testimony, if anybody wants to offer public testimony, and there is a sign-up sheet in the back for that. I see I do have some people signed up for that. So, if you're giving public testimony you will be given three minutes to testify and after all public testimony has been heard the applicant will, then, get another chance to come up and respond to anything that we have talked about. During that time there may be some questions from commissioners. Then when we are done with all the testimony we will close the public hearing, the commissioners will deliberate on the item and, then, we will vote on making a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: CPAM 10-002 McNelis Subdivision by Ten Mile Center, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Ustick Road Request: An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation on 13.85 Acres of Land from Mixed Use - Community (MU-C) and 20.04 Acres of Land from Office to Mixed Use -Non Residential (MU-NR) B. Public Hearing: RZ 11-001 McNelis Subdivision by Ten Mile Center, LLC Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Ustick Road Request: Rezone of 18,522 +/- Square Feet from L-O (Limited Office) to I-L (Light Industrial) and 16.24 +I- Acres from L-O to C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) Freeman: So, with that at this time I'd like to open the public hearing for items number CPAM 10-002 and RZ 11-001 regarding the McNelis Subdivision, beginning with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 3 of 16 Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Members of the Commission. The first application is an amendment to the future land use map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on 13.85 acres of land from mixed use community and 20.04 acres of land from office to mixed use nonresidential. Second application is a rezone of 16.24 acres of land from the limited office, L-O zoning district, to the general retail and service commercial, C-G zoning district, and .43 of an acre of land from the L-O zoning district to the I-L, Light Industrial Zoning District, to coincide with the existing lot boundaries and center line of the street. A development agreement modification is also requested that will be heard by City Council concurrently with these applications. McNelis Subdivision consists of 34.07 acres. Is currently zoned I-L, L-O, and C-G and is generally located on the northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road. Adjacent property to the north is the wastewater treatment plant, zoned I-L, residential property to the south zoned R-4, and to the east zoned R-4 also and agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County and the to the west is residential property zoned R-2, commercial property zone C-N, and rural residential agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County. This property was annexed and preliminary platted in 2004 with a development agreement. The final plat has been recorded. The proposed rezone is consistent with the proposed map amendment and the map amendment is consistent with the mixed use nonresidential future land use designation of other property surrounding the wastewater treatment plant that do not allow for new residential uses. The industrial and commercial zoning will assist in providing a transition and buffer between the wastewater treatment plant and existing residences to the east and south. The applicant has submitted a new conceptual development plan and building elevation as part of the rezone application to be included in the amended development agreement that shows how the property may develop in the future with commercial and industrial uses. Written testimony has been received from Tamara Thompson, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed application. Staff will stand for any questions at this time. Freeman: Any questions of staff? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Okay. I want to ask -- you say it's -- we have got a mixed use nonresidential and I know we are trying to avoid residential around the wastewater treatment facility, but I'm looking at the staff report and the overhead of the zoning, nothing to the north of the wastewater treatment facility is zoned at this time? It's rural? Is that correct? Wafters: The parts -- if you're looking at the map in white that are zoned RUT is in Ada County that have not been annexed. Marshall: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 4 of 16 Wafters: That's correct, Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: So, that area north of the wastewater treatment facility has not been annexed and directly east and west of the wastewater treatment facility has not been annexed. This property has previously been annexed and zoned I-L, L-O and C-G. Wafters: That is correct. Marshall: And, then, there is another property, it appears at the quarter mile, it says C- G as well. Or is that C-N? Wafters: C-N. Marshall: C-N. Wafters: To the west and south. Marshall: Okay. And there was an original design for this when the zoning came in that somewhere failed along the line, that's why we have the zoning, or how did this zoning -- what's the history of the I-L, L-O, C-G? Wafters: Well, originally when this came through -- and Tamara may expand on this when she speaks, but originally when this came through it was proposed for industrial uses abutting the wastewater treatment plant as a transition and, then, office uses and, then, commercial uses on the corner. The applicant wishes to expand the office designated area to include -- you know, to open it up to more commercial uses. Marshall: And we have got all mixed use community; is that correct? Wafters: Right. That was when -- Marshall: On the future land use map. Wafters: -- the property was designated when the -- I believe when the last Comprehensive Plan was -- was done. Marshall: Right. Wafters: All the surrounding area around the wastewater treatment plant is designated mixed use nonresidential. Marshall: Everything that -- Wafters: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 5 of 16 Marshall: And this was -- in the Comprehensive Plan this was left mixed use community, as opposed to mixed use nonresidential. Watters: It was left the way it was currently designated. Marshall: Got you. Thank you. Watters: So, we would prefer, though, that it be, you know, mixed use nonresidential Marshall: Understand. Understand that we are not wanting residences up against the wastewater treatment facility. We actually had a residential on -- I believe it was the north side came in that we were not excited about, because we didn't want residences up against that at this time. Watters: Yes. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: Any other questions? Yearsley: I have none. Freeman: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? And when you do, please, state your name and address for the record. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with Landmark Development Group. I am here tonight representing the two ownership entities, which is Ten Mile Center, LLC, and Maverick. On this corner the real estate brokers have identified more uses that the market is demanding right now than just office for -- for the majority surrounding the corner and some of those uses -- I will just kind of run through those real quickly with you. Pet supplies. Veterinarian. Flower shop. Garden center. Dance studio. Drycleaners. Office supplies. Restaurants. Bank. Eye doctor. Cell phone sales. Equipment and tool rental. Those are all areas that they are showing are needs and they are showing potential tenants that are looking at this area and most of those we can't do within the L- Oand -- I'm sorry, Sonya, can you -- you guys can see things, it's just -- Freeman: We do have a map in front of us with the overall -- the staff report. Watters: They have the staff report, I believe, in front of them. Thompson: Okay. But your little PowerPoint didn't show up. Okay. I e-mailed her some things, so I'm sorry I don't have -- don't have many exhibits for you. So, the -- so just to kind of go back, the -- the Comp Plan amendment is -- is, in my opinion, a formality, just to kind of clean up and get to the mixed use nonresidential and that allows us to do all the I-L and the C-G within that Comp Plan designation. We are not Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 6 of 16 proposing to change any of the I-L. There is a small little portion of the I-L that you will see in the staff report and I don't have the exact, but it was pretty small. And that's just to clean it up, so that I don't know how it happened, but the legal description for the zone and the plat didn't line up exactly, there was a little triangle that didn't line up, so we are cleaning that up. But the I-L is proposed to stay the same, nothing changes with that. The C-G on the corner we are proposing to stay the same, nothing changes with that. And with that the current development agreement has a 24 hour use on those corners -- on that corner for those two parcels. So, we are proposing that stay the same. We are -- in changing the L-O to C-G, we are proposing that all of the prohibited uses in the development agreement stay. We are not proposing to change any of those. And the hours of operation would stay consistent with what was with the L-O. So, we are not looking for 24 hour there, I believe it's 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and that if anybody wants to change that that would be a specific Conditional Use Permit where that user could come in and ask for something separate, but you would look at that on a case by case and not just a global. So, the proposed rezone would allow a greater degree of flexibility to provide for a combination of compatible land uses to meet the current real estate market needs as given by our brokers and unless you have further questions, Ithink I -- we are in agreement with the staff report and we would appreciate an approval tonight. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. So, at this time we will take public testimony. We do have Janet Wilder signed up to speak. Are you Janet? Wilder: I talked to her before and she kind of answered my questions about it, so -- Freeman: Okay. So, you don't wish to speak this evening? Wilder: No. Freeman: Okay. Is there anybody else in the -- it doesn't look like there is anybody else in the audience that would like to speak to this item, so could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CPAM 10-002 and RZ 11-001. Rohm: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAM 10-002 and RZ 11-001, McNelis Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. Discussion? Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 7 of 16 Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'm all for the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and I have got no problem with that. I don't think it's an appropriate location for any residential whatsoever that close. I like the buffer between -- the residential that's there is great. There is a given distance between that and the wastewater treatment facility. I'm not -- what I do have a problem with is -- is covering that area with a C-G that actually puts C-G up against residential on three of the four sides. I am absolutely against that. If we were to go do something a little smaller, a C-C or some type of commercial I might be interested in that. C-C allows 60,000 square foot and a grocery store, which might be an appropriate location for something of that size and that nature. C-G allows for 200,000 square foot without any Conditional Use Permit. You could put a Wal-Mart there if you can fit it with a parking lot. I am against that and I think it's an absolutely inappropriate location for that. Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, when you referred to the residential on three sides, I assume you're referring to the existing residential east, south and southeast across the arterials? Marshall: Well, east-west -- there is a corner of -- yellow there on the west side I'm looking at. Freeman: Okay. Marshall: As well as the south and east. Freeman: Correct. Marshall: And with -- there is C-N further to the west and maybe C-N would be appropriate, but not C-G. Freeman: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? I -- I looked at this and I looked at the plan. I don't share Commissioner Marshall's concerns. I think this is an appropriate use here up against the wastewater treatment plant. By far the bulk of the residential is separated from the C-G zone by arterial and there is going to be -- there was C-G already approved on the corner anyway, so I would be in favor of this. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Freeman: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: A little banter here. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 8 of 16 Freeman: Okay. Marshall: If you don't mind. The C-G on the corner is not enough property to do a huge large commercial project. That will allow a 24 hour convenience store and some other shops, whatever. It will offer a small area. To be honest, I'm not fond of C-G on the corner like that, but, then, again, it does have its uses and it does allow fora 24 hour use where I would prefer to do that through a Conditional Use Permit in other zoning. What I am against is doing that large a piece of property in C-G and no matter who the potential clients are at this time that can always change. It depends on who steps us with money. You don't know who is going to walk up with money and say I want to put my great big store there. And I think it's a -- it's an inappropriate location for a regional store. I think it's appropriate for more local community stuff. I would like to see some commercial. I think it's a good location for commercial and the like and some industrial behind it. But I think 60,000 square foot, the size of a small regular grocery store, an Albertson's or something like that, is more than appropriate and I would not like to see something larger go there. I would be very much for a C-C or a C-N, but not a C-G. Wafters: Chairman Freeman, may I clarify something? Freeman: Please. Wafters: As part of the development agreement modification the applicant is proposing a conceptual development plan that will be tied to the development agreement that may help to relieve your -- you know, your concern on that so far as a big box going in. If you will look at that concept plan it is included in the staff report there and there are several small building pads included in that and in order to change that to something of a larger, you know, big box nature they would have to come back to City Council through a public hearing process and get a modification to the development agreement with that. Anyway, just -- Marshall: I understand that and Idon't -- I don't mind that and I don't know why most of that couldn't fit under a C-C, couldn't it? Wafters: Most of it probably could. Marshall: Why are we going C-G? The problem I have is that if this project goes defunct, as so many projects we have -- I doubt it will, but if it happens, as many projects we did not expect to go defunct have and been bought out and, then, we get somebody else coming in saying, geez, this is the only thing I can do here, you have to let me do it, it's already zoned C-G and we end giving way and I'm just not willing to go there. Freeman: Sony, thank you for the clarification. I was going to suggest to Commissioner Marshall that perhaps we can put some sort of a limitation in the development agreement if there is a specific type of use that's feared, but with your clarification realize we don't need to do that, because we already have a development agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 9 of 16 which would have to be changed and come back across the Commission in order to do anything drastically different. Wafters: That is correct and that does -- the development agreement does run with the land, if the property would change ownership or it -- it doesn't expire like a plat would. But, yes, you're correct, if you would like to prohibit some uses you -- you know, that is an option. Marshall: I just -- I don't know. I have just seen too many times when the stuff comes back -- I don't even know why we are trying C-G. It doesn't make sense to me. I mean why are we even -- if -- if C-C fits everything there, it's more limiting already and fits everything. I mean I don't understand what doesn't fit under a C-C and why we would go to the biggest zoning we can give when we don't need to go that big. I don't -- it doesn't make sense to me and I would prefer to see it more of a C-C or a C-N, as opposed to C-G. Freeman: Is staff aware of any additional restriction that we put on the owner if -- if it was a C-C versus a C-G? Marshall: It doesn't allow for 24 hour service without a CUP. Freeman: Should I restate that, Sonya? Wafters: I'm sorry. Yes. Freeman: That's okay. I was just wondering with Commissioner Marshall's comments, if there was any stated intention that the owner has that would not be allowable -- allowable in the C-C that is in the C-G or would a C-C accomplish the same thing? I'm just curious. Wafters: I don't have a zoning ordinance in front of me to compare the -- Freeman: I don't either, that's why I asked you. Wafters: I was scrambling. That's what I was doing was trying to find one. You know, the -- the concept plan, essentially, limits, you know, the size of the buildings. When -- when staff gets in a development application, a certificate of zoning compliance or any other kind of application, we look at the concept plan to see if it substantially complies and is consistent with that plan and if it isn't, you know, then, like I said, you would have to come back and do a development agreement modification. You know, another alternative is limiting the building size on the site. Marshall: But my question -- my question, then, is why do we even have these levels of commercial zoning? Why don't we just make all commercial C-G and cover it all with a development agreement, I mean if that's how we are going to handle it. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 10 of 16 Baird: Mr. Chair, if I may make a suggestion. It sounds like the Commission might have additional questions for the applicant that might be able to be answered directly, so if you want to entertain reopening the hearing you might be able to get the answers that you're seeking. Freeman: Thank you. Do you have more questions you would like to ask of the applicant? Marshall: I guess that's -- Freeman: Does anybody else? Marshall: I'm sure the applicant would want to address what -- why this has to be a C- G, as opposed to a C-C or a C-N. I'm sure -- I would be interested to hear that. Freeman: If you have questions I will go ahead and we can reopen this. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I would like to make that recommendation that we reopen it. Freeman: Okay. I believe we need a motion. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we reopen the public hearing for CPAM 10-002, RZ 11- 001. Yearsley: I'll second that. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for CPAM 10-002 and RZ 110-001, McNelis Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. I think we have some questions for the applicant. If you would like to come back up to the podium we will allow Commissioner Marshall to ask those and anyone else that want's to follow up. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Tamara Thompson, Landmark Development Group, standing for questions. Marshall: Okay. My question is, you know, why are we going all out for C-G? Wouldn't a C-C or a C-N designation work for the same purposes of what is proposed in the development agreement? Thompson: Commissioner Marshall, I -- I don't know the answer to that right offhand. I don't have the matrix with me that has the C-C, C-N, C-G, but I did sit down with my client and walk through those three and was the broker and I don't remember which specific one it was, but there were a couple of uses that were potential that we couldn't Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 11 of 16 do without a Conditional Use Permit or something like that in -- in the other zones. So, we were looking at C-G. Totally fine putting a size limitation on a building -- on any single building. I did the entitlements for the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick, did the exact same thing there. We zoned that C-G and in the development agreement there is a limitation that no single building can be -- and on that site no single building can be over 150,000 square feet. They were concerned about a Home Depot there, believe, so -- and that was acceptable. Something similar to that is acceptable here. You know, I'd like to go large enough so that potentially a grocery store, which those are typically in the 90,000 range. Marshall: I believe that's what a C-C is for fora 60,000 square foot grocery store, which that's the max and that's actually listed in the code and describes a grocery store as the target markets of the C-C. Thompson: Right. And the grocery store is not the -- is not -- I don't recall exactly what the -- what the use was that we wanted to go to the C-N and I apologize I don't have that matrix here with me to be able to point that out to you right now. Marshall: I guess -- I guess my concerns are not with your development application. It looks fine to me. All for it. My concerns are later down the road when we have already addressed -- zoned this as a C-G and, then, the argument becomes, well, it's zoned C-G and that's a problem to me. That's a serious problem to me. And to be honest would prefer to have a more limiting -- I mean I don't understand why we have these other zones if they fit well and occasionally if you have an extra-curricular use that we use a CUP, that's what they are there for. I do not like C-G against residential anywhere and I think we have made that mistake over and over again and -- and it isn't necessarily the first time with a development agreement we have in place, what happens is things fall through, things change, time changes, economics changes and now I've got aperson -- and this is the only way I can move it and you have got to let me do this and somehow things get passed through and I'm not fond of that personally. I'm sorry. I do like the development and I like what you have got going there, I just want to see it a little more limited zoning wise. I just don't like the C-G. Thompson: Commission Marshall, Idon't -- I don't -- I mean I completely understand what you're saying. I have seen it happen before. I think you may be dealing with it on other sites in the near vicinity. I think there is ways that we can, you know, put other limitations on it that will get you there or -- Marshall: I understand. Freeman: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Rohm: I have none. Yearsley: I don't have anything. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 12 of 16 Watters: Chairman Freeman? Freeman: Yes, Sonya. Watters: If you're interested I did get a copy of the zoning ordinance online and can tell you the differences if -- if you would like in either the C-N or the C-C as an alternative. Marshall: Please do. Watters: Okay. Which one do you prefer? Marshall: Actually, I'd like to hear them both, just to -- I have read them thoroughly. I'm -- it's been a little while since I have read them, but -- Watters: Okay. All right. Arts, entertainment, and recreation facilities outdoors are a permitted use in the C-C and C-G districts and conditional in the C-N district. Arts, entertainment, and recreation facility outdoor stage or music venue is a conditional use in the C-C and C-G. Prohibited in C-N. Building material, garden equipment, and supplies is a permitted use in the C-C and C-G district, conditional use in the C-N. Equipment rental, sales and service is conditional use in the C-C and C-G, prohibited in the C-N. Flex space is permitted in the C-G and C-C, prohibited in the C-N. Fuel sales facility is permitted in the C-C and C-G, prohibited in C-N. Excuse me. Conditional use in the C-N. Fuel sales facility truck stop is conditional use in the C-G and prohibited in the C-N and C-C. Hospital is prohibited in the C-N and conditional in the C-C and C-G. Light industry is conditional use in the C-G and prohibited in the C-N and C-C. Laundry and dry-cleaning is permitted in the C-G, conditional in the C-C and prohibited in the C- N. Mortuary is a permitted use in the C-C and C-G and conditional in C-N. Multi-family development is a conditional use in the C-N and C-G, prohibited in -- excuse me. Let me back up. Multi-family development is conditional use in the C-C and C-G, prohibited in C-N. Nursery or urban farm is permitted in the C-C and C-G, prohibited in -- excuse me -- conditional use -- I'm getting tongue tied here. Conditional use in the C-G. And, let's see, nursing or residential care facilities is prohibited in the C-G, but conditional use in the C-N and C-C. And RV parks permitted in the C-G and prohibited in C-N and C-C, as is research and development facilities. Storage facility, self service, is conditional use in the C-C and C-G, prohibited in C-N. Vehicle sales or rental and service is permitted in the C-G and conditional use in the C-C and prohibited in the C-N. Vehicle washing facility is permitted in the C-C and C-G, conditional use in the C-N, as is vertically integrated residential projects. And that is it. Marshall: Thank you. Freeman: Thank you, Sonya. Watters: Now that I have read the whole zoning ordinance. You're welcome. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 13 of 16 Marshall: Again, there is not some significant things, other than maybe square footage where C-G allows 200,000 square foot without a conditional use permit. Wafters: Retail is a permitted use in any of the -- Marshall: Right. But C-C does limit square footage by zone to 60,000. And I didn't see anything on the development requiring more than that. It looks like truck stops might not be permitted. Wafters: Yeah. Marshall: You know, there is just -- Waters: Maverick does own that corner lot, so -- you know. Marshall: But they are already C-G. Wafters: They are. Marshall: That's already C-G, they would have a 24 hour permit in C-G and the gas is already allowed. That would not be an issue. My issue is simply with the L-O area going to C-G and I -- and abutting residential around most of it. I don't mind C-G up against I-L, that's fine. My problem is where it abuts residential to get -- understand was reading where they are going to start the first phase of Highway 16, so we are going to get significantly more traffic through this area and that first phase going from Highway 44 over to Highway 20-26, is anticipated to open in 2013. That will dump significantly more traffic onto 20-26 and probably funnel significantly more traffic to Ten Mile because of the interstate interchange. Who knows what's going to happen in this area in the next two or three years and if it hasn't developed out as foreseen in this development plan, I can see somebody coming back and asking to change it and it's already zoned C-G, I am just -- I mean -- Freeman: Commissioner Marshall, it occurs to me, though, that any way you look at this a future owner could come back and even pursue a rezone, you know. The same way they would have to come back and pursue a development agreement modification or any of the other things. In my mind, you know, this may not be the ideal mixture to achieve what we want to achieve here, but I think it achieves it and also limits it, because we have a development agreement in addition to -- Marshall: I'm still trying to wonder why we have the other zones. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Freeman: Yes. Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 14 of 16 Rohm: I think that we have kicked this around long enough and we need to close the public hearing and -- and move forward. Freeman: I'd like to give the applicant one more chance to speak -- if there is anything else you wanted to address as a result of this, since it is still open, I'll let you do that and, then, we will close it. Thank you, Commissioner Rohm. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Tamara Thompson again. When Sonya was going through her list I believe the one that was the issue originally was the I-L, because you can do light industrial in C-G and that was the issue is that if -- if the light industrial needed to break its borders a little bit, you know, encroach here or there, that we wouldn't have to rezone for that, that the I-L could encroach into the C-G. So, that was the reason that we -- Freeman: So, that's the difference to the applicant. Thompson: Yeah. That was the reason that we asked for C-G instead of C-C. Freeman: Okay. Thank you very much. Thompson: Thank you. Freeman: Could I, then, get a motion to close the public hearing? Wafters: And -- excuse me. Could I clarify one additional thing. It is light industry, as opposed to light industrial. If you would like that definition I can get that for you, if that's something you're interested in. Freeman: Do we need that definition? I don't believe so. Marshall: I'm familiar with it. Freeman: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Yearsley: So moved. Marshall: Second. Freeman: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPAM 10-002 and RZ 11-001, McNelis Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Okay. I don't know that we need more discussion, unless some of the other commissioners would like to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 15 of 16 Rohm: I think I'd just like to throw in, chairman, that I firmly believe in the process that we have within the City of Meridian and the development agreement that we have that goes -- runs with this property and the conceptual plat that has been filed as part of that development agreement are those things that protect the community as a whole from a developer doing something outside of what has been approved and I'm in full support of this application as written. Freeman: With that could I get a motion? Rohm: Yes. I would like to move -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file numbers CPAM 10-002 and RZ 10-001 and MDA 11- 002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 21st with no modifications. End of motion. Freeman: Do I have a second? Yearsley: I'll second that. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to approve CPAM 10-002 and RZ 11-001, McNelis Subdivision with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Marshall: Aye. Freeman: Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: There are no more items on the agenda, so could I get one more motion? Rohm: I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Freeman: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: We are adjourned. Thank you very much. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:44 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian Planning & Zoning April 21, 2011 Page 16 of 16 APPROVED ..5 ~ ~ ~ 1 - CHAIRMA DATE APPROVED o~ ti~sf~~1 I ~- V ~` ~e ATTEST: a ~t~C6~\1c~C. JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLERK ,~;:,, - ~ ~'~ ~ =_ Q`Z` ` 9® ~T ;5t ,,'J 9 ~~~'~Y'd ®~' ,. ~, Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 21, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of March 3, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MEETING NOTES ~~~~ Sy / Svn ~l-0 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 21, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: CPAM 10-002 ITEM TITLE: McNelis Subdivision Public Hearing: An amendment to the Comp Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 13.85 acres of land from Mixed Use -Community (MU-C) and 20.04 acres of land from Office to Mixed Use -Non Residential (MU-NR) by Ten Mile Center, LLC - NWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES ~.. C~(° 5~Z `f CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: April 21, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: RZ 11-001 ITEM TITLE: McNelis Subdivision Public Hearing: Rezone of 18,522 +/- square feet from L-O (Limited Office) to I-L (Light Industrial) and 16.24 +/- acres from L-O to C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial) by Ten Mile Center, LLC - NWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Ustick Road MEETING NOTES ~~~sy 3-~ ~ -F~r c'`e S/a~/ CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS